Ex Parte Hufenbach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

14362693 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/362,693 06/04/2014 Werner Hufenbach 6560-P50138 8133
13897 7590 (
Abel Law Group, LLP
8911 N. Capital of Texas Hwy
Bldg 4, Suite 4200
Austin, TX 78759
EXAMINER
VANAMAN, FRANK BENNETT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mail @ Abel-IP.com
hmuensterer @ abel-ip. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte WERNER HUFENBACH, MARTIN LEPPER, JENS WERNER,
and CHRISTIAN KOEHLER
Appeal 2017-003518
Application 14/362,693
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL A. STRAUSS, LARRY HUME, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 11—30, which represent all the pending
claims. Notice of Appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
September 26, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief filed Jan. 2, 2017 (“Reply
Br.”), the Specification filed June 4, 2014 (“Spec.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed November 25, 2016 (“Ans.”) and the Final Rejection mailed April
28, 2016 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2017-003518
Application 14/362,693
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to “a wheel rim having a rim base
made of fiber composite material and a wheel disk, wherein the wheel disk
is connected to a radial marginal area with the rim base.” Spec. p. 1, 11:8-9.
Claim 11, the only pending independent claim, is illustrative and
reproduced below:
11. A wheel rim, wherein the wheel rim comprises a rim base
of fiber composite material and a wheel disk, the wheel disk being
connected to the rim base at a radial marginal area, and wherein
(a) the wheel disk is present as a single piece and only the
marginal area of the wheel disk comprises at least two partial layers
on each of which a substantially axially extending, contoured joint
zone is formed, the joint zone being connected to the rim base in an
area of a drop center of the rim base and conforming to a contour of
the rim base in the area of the drop center, or
(b) the wheel disk comprises at least two partial layers which
are arranged close together in certain areas and on each of which in a
marginal area thereof a substantially axially extending, contoured
joint zone is formed, the joint zone being connected to the rim base in
an area of a drop center of the rim base and conforming to a contour
of the rim base in the area of the drop center.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 22—26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Spoelstra (US 2003/0189373 Al,
Oct. 9, 2003). Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 24—30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spoelstra. Final Act. 3—7.2
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the §§102 and 103 rejections of
claims 24—26. Ans. 3, 13.
2
Appeal 2017-003518
Application 14/362,693
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of the
claims. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations
provided in the Final Rejection and Answer. Final Act. 2—7; Ans. 3—13.
Section 102 Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Spoelstra anticipates
claim 11. In particular, Appellants argue that Spoelstra’s preforms 2 and 3
are not connected to the preform 1 in the area of the drop center but rather
are connected to the preform 1 over substantially the entire width of the
preform 1 with the exception of the area of the drop center. App Br. 8. The
Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Spoelstra’s disc preforms 2 and 3
are illustrated in Figure 3 as being in abutting contact with the flatted drop
center in at least the regions circled in the Answer. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner
notes, and we agree, that the claims do not require contact with the entirety
of the drop center. Id. at 5. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Spoelstra’s
preforms do not represent a joint zone which conforms to the “flattened
section of the rim that has the closest proximity to the wheel center.” Reply
Br. 3. However, we find this argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 11, which does not recite conforming to a “section of the rim that
has the closest proximity to the drop center,” but rather merely recites
“conforming to a contour of the rim base in the area of the drop center”
(emphasis added). Accordingly we are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellants also argue the Examiner interprets contour to merely mean
“shape” and this interpretation renders the claim term meaningless. We do
3
Appeal 2017-003518
Application 14/362,693
not agree. The Examiner explains that contour is construed as referring to a
shape of interface between the named elements, and this interpretation is not
inconsistent with the Specification. Ans. 6. Appellants do not direct our
attention to a more specific definition of “contour” in the Specification, and
we find the Examiners’ interpretation is reasonable in light of the
Specification. We therefore are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11 as anticipated by Spoelstra.
Appellants also argue that Spoelstra does not anticipate dependent
claim 23 because Spoelstra does not disclose fiber composites formed from
textile fiber layers. App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds, however, and we
agree, Spoelstra discloses “compressing mats of oriented fibers into each of
the respective preforms.” Ans. 7 (citing Spoelstra Tflf 3, 8). The Examiner
finds “textile” is understood to include a woven or knit cloth, or a fiber,
filament, or yam used in making cloth, and because Spoelstra’s mats are
described as including oriented fibers, the Examiner finds this conveys the
use of textile as claimed. Id. Appellants do not respond to this finding in
the Reply Brief. Absent persuasive rebuttal, we are not persuaded of error,
and we therefore sustain the rejection of claim 23 as anticipated by
Spoelstra.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Spoelstra, and claims 13, 15, 17,
19, and 22, which were argued together with claim 11.
Section 103 Rejection
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Spoelstra renders
obvious claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27—30. App. Br. 14— 16.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Spoelstra teaches the “single
4
Appeal 2017-003518
Application 14/362,693
piece.” App. Br. 14. Appellants also argue Spoelstra fails to teach the two
partial layers of the marginal area of the wheel disk are produced by splicing
an outer circumference of the wheel disk (claim 27) or by adding another
layer at the marginal area of the wheel disk, which layer is glued at an
extension of a material of the wheel disk (claim 28). App. Br. 15. The
Examiner provides a comprehensive response in the Answer, with which we
agree, explaining how Spoelstra teaches the limitations of these claims.
Ans. 10-11. Appellants do not persuasively rebut these findings and
conclusions. Reply Br 2—6.
Appellants also argue Spoelstra fails to teach the limitations of
dependent claims 29 and 30. App Br. 16. In particular, Appellants argue
Spoelstra does not teach the preforms can be combined to make a disk in the
appearance of a spoked construction. Id. The Examiner responds that “the
appearance of a spoked wheel is notoriously old and well known,” and
provides a comprehensive response explaining how these claims are
obvious. Ans. 12—13. Appellants do not respond to these findings and
conclusions in the Reply Brief. Reply Br 2—6.
Absent persuasive rebuttal or evidence to the contrary, we are not
persuaded of error, and we therefore sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27—30.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments with
respect to claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27—30 for the reasons identified
by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Answer. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 27—30.
5
Appeal 2017-003518
Application 14/362,693
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 11—23
and 27—30.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6